Lack of outcome research on New Zealand care and protection family group conference
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol25iss1id96Keywords:
child protection, family group conferenceAbstract
Despite the popularity of the New Zealand care and protection family group conference (FGC) and its success in strengthening families, there is no evidence to show that the conference achieves its other desired outcome of protecting children from abuse and neglect. This evidence can only be obtained through evaluative research. For the FGC to maintain its credibility, the critical need for evaluative research in the New Zealand care and protection FGC needs to be addressed. Most of the other countries that have adopted the FGC have undertaken evaluative studies. New Zealand practitioners and researchers can draw from international evaluation studies and develop appropriate research designs and methodologies to evaluate New Zealand’s care and protection FGC.References
Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (2004). From the agency client to community based consumer: The family group conference as a consumer-led group in child welfare. In D. C. Garvin, M., L. Gutierrez & J. M. Galinsky (Eds), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 415-446). London: Guilford Press.
Connolly, M. (2001). New Zealand social work: Contexts and practice. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, M. (2004). Child and family welfare: Statutory response to children at risk. Christchurch: Te Awatea Press.
Connolly, M. (2006). Fifteen years of family group conferencing: Coordinators talk about their experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 523-540.
Connolly, M. & McKenzie, M. (1999). Effective participatory practice: Family group conference in child protection. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Fraser, S., & Norton, J. (1996). Family group conferencing in New Zealand child protection work. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds), Family group conference: Perspectives policy and practices (pp.37-48). NSW: Federation Press.
Gilling, M., Patterson, L., & Walker, B. (1995). Family members’experiences of the care and protection family group conference process. Wellington: Social Policy Agency.
Gunderson, K., Cahn, K., & Wirth, J. (2003). The Washington State long term outcome study. Protecting Children, 18, 1&2, 42-47.
Hassall, I. (1996). Origin and development of family group conference. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds), Family group conference: Perspectives policy and practices (pp.17-36). NSW: Federation Press.
Hudson, J., Morris, A., Maxwell, G., & Galaway, B. (Eds). (1996). Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice. NSW: Federation Press.
Lupton, C., & Nixon, P. (1997). Empowering practice: A critical appraisal of the Family Group Conference approach. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Lupton, C., & Stevens, M. (1997). Family outcomes: Following through on family group conference. Portsmouth: Social Services Information Unit, University of Portsmouth.
Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1997). Family group conferences in child welfare. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mason, K. (1992). Report of the ministerial review team to the Minister of Social Welfare. Wellington: Ministerial Review Team.
Maxwell, G., & Pakura, S. (2006). The family group conference: Does it work for child protection? Retrieved from http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/completedactivities/RJ%20Mexico/CareProtFGC.pdf
Ministry of Social Development (2006). Family group conferences. Retrieved from http://www.cyf.govt.nz
Munford, R., & Nash, M. (1994). Social work in action. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Nixon, P., Burford, G., Quinn, A., & Edelbaum, J. (2005). A survey of international practices, policy & research on family group conferencing and related practices. Retrieved from: http://www.americanhumane.org
Paterson, K., & Harvey, M. (1991). An evaluation of the organisation and operation of care and protection family group conference. Wellington: Department of Social Welfare.
Payne, M. (1997). Modern social work theory (2nd ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (1997). Family group decision making project: Outcome summary report. Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79, 2, 131-158.
Robertson, J. (1996). Research on family group conference in child welfare in New Zealand. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell & B. Galaway (Eds), Family group conference: Perspectives policy and practices (pp.49-64). NSW:Federation Press.
Smith,C. (2001). Research and the theory/practice interface. In M.Connolly(Ed.), New Zealand social work:Contexts and practice (pp. 343-355). Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Stevens, M. (1999). Assessing outcomes in child welfare. In C. Lupton & P. Nixon (Eds.), Empowering practice: A critical appraisal of the family group conference approach. Bristol: Polity Press.
Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety: A solution and safety oriented approach to child protection casework. New York: Norton.
Velen, M., & Devine, L. (2005). Use of FGDM with children in care the longest: It’s about time. Protecting Children, 19, 4, 25-35.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
